"No Cycling" signs on Thames Path between Lambeth Bridge and Westminster Bridge

You absolutely certain that riding on this particular bit of river is worth fighting for? Why? Shouldn't we be on the road?

I like the look of the river.

I'm gonna need more than that before I start arguing with the tools of the state (emphasis on tool).

I like to see my reflection in the glass of the buildings opposite the town hall.

'The ban is not enforceable, because no traffic management order has been issued. The black signs have no legal validity. (I think a legal ban requires the DfT design-standard white circle with red border, with a cycle symbol in it). PCSOs are not supposed to stop people cycling, let alone those with disabilities, but instead are supposed to have a word with any cyclists abut considerate behaviour.'

From Road CC website

I'm just trying to ask: aren't there more useful stuff to be writing to MPs about? Enforcing speed limits? Getting rid of one-way systems? Removing roadside barriers? Prosecuting people who claim to have not seen cyclists they kill?

Fuck dawdling about on the footways. If you want a view, climb a sodding hill.

Skully: I think it is worth fighting for. The Thames path is a long one which as you say is an established shared use path which also forms part of the national cycle network (or some such) which extends in both directions. Although I shall not employ the slippery slope argument and say that a ban here (effectively what they are trying to shoe-in, illegally) will mean a ban elsewhere along the route, it does not set a good precedent. And why shouldn't there be continuous cycle routes along the thames? It's what tourists come to see - it's iconic - and is a great leisure route into the country past erith. The Thames path as a leisure route should be promoted, not discouraged.

The worst part is the alternatives that Kate Hoey, in particular, has suggested. Instead of taking the Thames path, she suggests people take the Lambeth Palace road / Vauxhall. I may be speculating, but for an inexperienced cyclist/commuter that it is a shit route, and one that probably seems quite intimidating at the very least. It is this aspect which irritates me most - the effective discouragement of inexperienced cyclists. As a complete novice, I wouldn't fancy the Vauxhall interchange every morning, and although that might not be a necessary part of an alternative for everyone using that path, I suspect it is for a high number of people coming from that direction, and it's one of the least bike-friendly intersections in London. As a noob I'd probably say "Fuck it, I'll get the bus" instead, unless I was a confident white male aged 20-44 etc...

And yeah, maybe people should get cycle training, become more confident riding on roads with four lanes of traffic, but for someone who might have just bought a bike in London, I doubt this is the first thing they would plan to do with their bike.

So screw Kate Hoey and her silly south bank business consortium, or whoever the fuck these narrow minded squabs are. Poo.

Edit: Needs pics. The Thames path is lovely in the summer. This is why it's worth fighting for, among other things:

Skully, you can write about all those things as well.. I did Lambeth Palace Road for 9 years and it’s grim. If I was passing through, I would still go that route, but this is a pleasant alternative for some people. Pleasant is good..

I'm just trying to ask: aren't there more useful stuff to be writing to MPs about? Enforcing speed limits? Getting rid of one-way systems? Removing roadside barriers? Prosecuting people who claim to have not seen cyclists they kill?

Fuck dawdling about on the footways. If you want a view, climb a sodding hill.

All those things are good too, but hell, I enjoy riding on the roads and through the paths through parks and greenways etc. I don't think one should have to sacrifice the right to ride considerately on shared use paths foe the sake of improved on-road conditions.

We might also write to our MPs about foreign policy etc, things which are arguably more important than cycle paths...

And as tituluvus has said, part of the reason we should object is that the council have put up these stupid signs without following their own legal procedures, which they are now trying to satisfy post-hoc. What they have done is illegal.

Good answers fellas, point taken about the alternatives.

Still not sure I want to tell a copper or one of those grass-with-a-badge people that I know my rights and all that shit. I'd rather ride somewhere else.

I wrote to my MP
Dear Ms Hoey
I am writing to you about the no cycling notices on the South bank near St Thomas's hospital
I use this route as part of my commute to work. I am a middle aged professional person, not given to recklessness. I used to drive to work, but for health financial and environmental reasons I have sold my car, and cycle as much as I can.
I am very surprised to see no cycling notices going up on this part of my route.
I have been led to believe that there have been complaints about the reckless behaviour of some cyclists, and I can of course testify to this. But why ban us all? I see far more reckless behaviour among motorists, (which is one reason the South Bank route is my preferred choice) but I don't see motorists being banned wholesale. I was also recently the victim of some loutish behaviour from some pedestrians with a football on the South bank, who kicked a ball at my as I cycled past. But there are no signs banning pedestrians.
So why victimise a group of people choosing a clean cheap and healthy mode of travel?
Why not instead tackle the reckless ones, instead of the innocent ones?

Can you explain?

Also the Thames path ought to rideable, I agree.

skully backtracking<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Good answers fellas, point taken about the alternatives.

Still not sure I want to tell a copper or one of those grass-with-a-badge people that I know my rights and all that shit. I'd rather ride somewhere else.

They're PCSO's - what can they do, arrest you? They might give you a bit of paper which on that particular route is meaningless - even proof of the council's errors. But they won't do that, they'll just ask people to get off, and they will, even though they don't have to.

Fuck, this is my saturday evening.

Adroit, I love your letter. It should be put in LFGSS templates. Thank you.

@spybot - I'm preparing for a job interview - even worse...

The point is that the signs may or may not be incorrect, but you need a traffic management order or similar legal instrument to ban cyclists. They don't have that, so there is no ban - just some signs which (incorrectly) imply there is and some plastic policemen telling people not to ride their bikes.

I think taking the 'we don't ride on pavements' argument to its extreme like this is elitest and counter-productive. Some people don't have the confidence to ride on the roads at all - so the safe places where they can ride are precious.

If it is part of the National Cycle Network that's exactly what it's meant to be, and yes we should fight against people trying to rip big holes in it.

That's my point. What they've done is illegal, the notice they have put up has no legal weight. But the signs do say no cycling. Which is wrong therefore, on two counts - legally, and according to the points I (and others) have made above. We are saying same thing, methinks.

And anyway, you can't just put up signs willy-nillly saying get off here, can't ride there etc, with no legal basis. On such grounds I might go through central London tomorrow putting no entry signs with cycle contraflows on as many roads as I like and apply for permission retrospectively. That's not how things work, innit.

Surely the simplest answer then is to put up our own (illegal, pointless) sign banning PCSO's from the Thames Path- it would have the same basis as the current "No cycling" ones.

Then when challenged by the PCSO one could point out that they are not allowed on the path at all, and ask them to leave.

We could put up some more and ban say dinosaurs and Formula One cars as well.

Sorry, just to clarify, I was arguing against Skully, but then basically noticed he'd changed his mind after my post, only the first line was aimed at you Oli, it was just my 2p really.

That is an absolutely brilliant idea Dammit. PR genius. You're in the wrong job.

Seriously think let's do this, take photos, get them out on Twitter and on sites that cover London. Or film the bit where you tell PCSOs they're banned and their reaction and put it up on youtube?

Surely the best answer is to tell them that their signs have as much legal force as a smiley face I might draw on my backside, so therefore they are legally obliged to take them down, or at the very least change the wording. I believe Lambeth/Southwark cyclists are discussing the best way to do this without steeling the jobsworths at the council againsy cyclists in general.

Counter-crap-signs seems a little churlish imho, possibly opens one up to accusations of vandalism and counter productive in the medium term. A little like the way critical mass has probably lost its way somewhat.

Not changed my mind: simply asking for a clear reason to be indignant about this. Up to a few posts ago, there was an implicit assumption that any banning of cycles is just wrong without analysis. Little if this legal argument was being discussed up there, which I have to say is shocking! Dammit's signs sound ace! Any less of those muppets around us fine by me. And extinct reptiles.

Dammit, I like the cut of your jib. I also like the cut of Catfood's jib. He's not on this thread, but I just do..

Bunch of wankers. Joggers cause far more problems along there than cyclists do. I have been taken out by a jogger once. I was cycling at < 5 mph, he came sprinting into me at about 15 and then had the nerve to try and blame me. Saucy twat.

Just ignore the signs. I shall be

I should say I think the signs would be churlish at this point, but if they don't listen to lobbying then it would be a perfect 'apply pressure through negative publicity' approach.

Let's hope they listen.

I just love John the Monkey's quote on http://thebikeshow.net/cycling-ban-south-bank/#update

"I have some complaints about a small number of aggressive motorists, who spoil things for me and the sensible motorists on my commute. I intend to write to my local council and have cars banned from the route forthwith."

I do agree that this is not a stretch of cycling nirvana I'd recommend for bike polo or time trialing, I happen to love cycling along the river in a non agressive kick back leisurely cruise mode and we are allowed to cycle on that stretch for now. OK so they are planning to ban it, which I disagree with, but if they do so I will abide by the ban. But the point is we are allowed to cycle on there as things stand and they have still spent money putting up signs and have obviously informed plod to accost cyclists acting like there is some legal basis to do so when in fact there is not. Yes I know govts can be all about misinformation but this just got my goat, and its on my doorstep, bloody NIMBY.

Anyway having read this thread yesterday and armed with this new information I went down there today, and at this point i must stress I was not in any way following what I think in these parts is known as the Dancing James approach to on/off road conflict resolution. I went along slowly giving priority to peds at all times, smiling and enjoying the day and past 2 complods at Lambeth end and 3 at Westminster end and on both occasions no one said a peep, typical, the one day I'm ready for them they don't bite, ho hum.